Liberals reject call for $10/hr. minimum wage

[parrot 789]

6.50, that's mighty generous of you lol.

[Toro 1]

Do you see my point? Basically, it is that Toro isn't the only one in the US that pays taxes.

 

I was kidding about the stalking comment. geesh.

 

It just sounds like you disagree with me. Last time I checked it was ok to have an opinion about how my govt spends my tax money. You believe something different. I understand that you pay taxes as well. We all do. What IS your freakin' point?

[Brick Tamland 0]

The things you talk about really don't affect me. My taxes go up 50 bucks a month. No big deal. 50 bucks is a Thursday night dinner at Chili's. I sneeze at 50 bucks.

 

1. People who have $ don't talk about it.

2. People who have $ don't go to Chili's, you focking white trash.

 

HTH

[edjr 5,567]

Why are we still paying SS when we're never going to see it?

 

1. People who have $ don't talk about it.

2. People who have $ don't go to Chili's, you focking white trash.

 

HTH

 

 

I'm poor and talk about it all the time.

[Toro 1]

1. People who have $ don't talk about it.

2. People who have $ don't go to Chili's, you focking white trash.

 

HTH

 

ooooo...

 

Tough guy.

 

 

Dude, Social Security and Medicare are entitlements. Along with welfare, they're the grandaddies of entitlements.

 

YOU PAY FOR THEM SO THEREFORE YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THEM. I am talking about those people who don't pay into them.

 

LOL. Can you see it now? A woman calls the police and is told, "I'm sorry to hear that ma'am, uh, there's a Best Western about 10 miles down the road..." Or, "while there's a lull in the beating, why don't you check on-line to see if there's a charity near you that can help."

You think battered women's shelters are robbing you via taxes?

 

You are an idiot. That's not what I said.

 

When will I learn not to argue with an alias.

[D_House 0]

I was kidding about the stalking comment. geesh.

 

It just sounds like you disagree with me. Last time I checked it was ok to have an opinion about how my govt spends my tax money. You believe something different. I understand that you pay taxes as well. We all do. What IS your freakin' point?

[hoytdwow 202]

You are an idiot. That's not what I said.

 

You said:

There are things called friends, families and motels. Usually someone has the ability to stay with one of those 3. If not, there are CHARITIES out there that provide this service from people who DONATE their money, rather than being robbed of it via taxes.

 

 

When will I learn not to argue with an alias.

 

geez, I don't know. Whatever you do, don't put me on ignore again.

 

[jerryskids 5,206]

No smart company is employing a single person more than they need to deliver an acceptable product. That is particularly true at the minimum wage level. If Burger King could get away with one fewer cashier don't you think they'd already try it? Even assuming you're right, wouldn't a hike in the min. wage force companies to be more economical and workers to be more productive? The other argument you guys always toss out is that costs will be shifted on to the consumer. Maybe to a point, but costs are driven by consumer demand - BK doesn't charge $10 for a Whopper because no one would buy it. Some companies may pass costs along to consumers to a small point but they risk cutting down on the volume they're selling if they overprice their products. I'm not saying the min. wage should be $15 or $20 - I'd just like to see it hiked to keep pace with inflation.

 

I'm open to changing my mind on this, but you guys never give me much reason to. I've seen articles from think tanks like the Cato Inst. or Heritage Foundation that say raising the min. wage would be a problem, but those organizations are against all government regulation. At least in that regard they're consistent, if not reliable as a source on economics. Pennsylvania just voted a statewide increase in the min. wage, two whole dollars over the next two years. I'll let you know if that raise is accompanied by mass layoffs of min. wage workers. If not, I'm sure you'll find some way to continue to justify your belief, that's what ideologues do. Some conservatives are so used to repeating the same things without question that it never occurs to them they could be wrong ...

 

I'll walk you through an economics lesson. The reason a given Burger King has the number of employees it has is because when they look at all of the cost/revenue factors, that number of employees maximizes profit. If you change the minimum wage, you change the cost part of the analysis, and it needs to be re-analyzed.

 

I'm not saying that in any specific circumstance people will be guaranteed to lose jobs, I don't have that data. What is irrefutable though is that the parameters of the equation change.

 

Make sense?

[itsjjw 0]

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Does this happen to ring a bell for anyone?

 

It means a decent living, with dignity. Not living in poverty because corporations and Toro and his ilk are greedy pigs.

[parrot 789]

Does this happen to ring a bell for anyone?

 

It means a decent living, with dignity. Not living in poverty because corpations and Toro and his ilk are greedy pigs.

Damb that Toro and and the damb greedy corpations!

[MDC 5,893]

I'll walk you through an economics lesson. The reason a given Burger King has the number of employees it has is because when they look at all of the cost/revenue factors, that number of employees maximizes profit. If you change the minimum wage, you change the cost part of the analysis, and it needs to be re-analyzed.

 

I'm not saying that in any specific circumstance people will be guaranteed to lose jobs, I don't have that data. What is irrefutable though is that the parameters of the equation change.

 

Make sense?

 

Actually, a Burger King hires exactly the number of employees needed to deliver an acceptable product for a price the consumer is willing to pay. If BK is suddenly forced to pay its min. wage workers $2/hour more they're not going to start laying employees off because the quality of the product will suffer and consumers are not going to wait 20 mins. for a burger or pay $6 for a substandard Whopper. Consumer demand has as much to do with prices as overhead.

 

Of course you don't have the data. None of us do. Don't let that stop you from tossing out Cato Institute talking points as if it's irrefutable truth though, Professor.

[hoytdwow 202]

Does this happen to ring a bell for anyone?

 

It means a decent living, with dignity. Not living in poverty because corporations and Toro and his ilk are greedy pigs.

[toro] Shut up, focking lib commie! [/toro]

[mobb_deep 917]

[toro] Shut up, focking lib commie! [/toro]

 

It seems that most threads in which you disagree with Toro go something like this...

 

Toro makes a point, you argue the point and give your reasons, Toro calls you names or lays one of his patent one liners on you.

[jerryskids 5,206]

Actually, a Burger King hires exactly the number of employees needed to deliver an acceptable product for a price the consumer is willing to pay. If BK is suddenly forced to pay its min. wage workers $2/hour more they're not going to start laying employees off because the quality of the product will suffer and consumers are not going to wait 20 mins. for a burger or pay $6 for a substandard Whopper. Consumer demand has as much to do with prices as overhead.

 

Of course you don't have the data. None of us do. Don't let that stop you from tossing out Cato Institute talking points as if it's irrefutable truth though, Professor.

You are wrong. Employees at BK much more impact the quantity of product, not the quality. Also my analysis was not from Cato Institute, it was basic economics. I even admitted that that analysis may or may not result in layoffs; you don't know until you actually do it.

 

Meh, I need to head out. Anyone else wants to try to explain this, go for it.

[itsjjw 0]

You are wrong. Employees at BK much more impact the quantity of product, not the quality. Also my analysis was not from Cato Institute, it was basic economics. I even admitted that that analysis may or may not result in layoffs; you don't know until you actually do it.

 

Meh, I need to head out. Anyone else wants to try to explain this, go for it.

What really makes all of this moot, is that most states already have a higher minimum wage than the federal level. And therefore will not increase unemployment. Raising it nationally will only serve to standardize the minimum.

[MDC 5,893]

You are wrong. Employees at BK much more impact the quantity of product, not the quality. Also my analysis was not from Cato Institute, it was basic economics. I even admitted that that analysis may or may not result in layoffs; you don't know until you actually do it.

 

Meh, I need to head out. Anyone else wants to try to explain this, go for it.

 

All I've gathered from your "analysis" was that you have no stats to back you up and you're not even sure if a hike in the minimum wage would = layoffs or higher prices. Very useful, great stuff.

[vuduchile 1,941]

The thing is, it's not really true. In studies in states where they raised the min. wage above the federal set wage unemployment stayed the same, in a a couple of cases it went down. People tend to look at this from one perspective, forgetting that those who recieve the increase wage pump that money right back into the economy.

 

Saw a portion of this study online before-can't find it now

In a work that has important implications for public policy as well as for the direction of economic research, the authors put standard economic theory to the test, using data from a series of recent episodes, including the 1992 increase in New Jersey's minimum wage, the 1988 rise in California's minimum wage, and the 1990-91 increases in the federal minimum wage. In each case they present a battery of evidence showing that increases in the minimum wage lead to increases in pay, but no loss in jobs.

 

The no loss in jobs probably has a lot to do with the price control of a minimum wage that has been kept way behind the costs of lving. Did unemployment spiral out of control when the minimum wage was increased in the mid 90s, did prices skyrocket?

If I recall correctly 50% of min wage workers are teenagers. What do you think they do with that money? It goes right back into the system.

 

We can both cite articles that support our viewpoints. Here's an interesting one about recent political goings-on in my backyard.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/27/...in1839752.shtml

 

Daly has vetoed the measure, and the city council has since failed to override his veto.

 

Read what both Wal Mart and Target spokesmen said on the subject.

 

My original point was not that raising the minimum wage would lead to mass layoffs. Rather, that some corporations will use such an opportunity as an excuse to reduce head count. In this particular case, both retailers warned that they might choose to relocate out of Chicago if this measure was passed.

 

Big Box retailers operate on pretty slim margins. A spike in average payroll per store would have a drastic effect on their individual bottom line.

 

Speaking from inside a simliar corporation, I can guarantee you that head counts would have been reduced if this measure had stood. Further, we would have taken a long, hard look at shutting certain locations, and would have halted plans to open others.

 

My guess is that net job gain/loss on a statewide basis has as much to do with other economic factors as it does with an increase in minimum wage. Does the study you reference indicate total job gain/loss for the state, or is it looking directly at certain industries or companies that employ large numbers of minimum wage workers?

 

 

 

 

 

 

The thing is, it's not really true. In studies in states where they raised the min. wage above the federal set wage unemployment stayed the same, in a a couple of cases it went down. People tend to look at this from one perspective, forgetting that those who recieve the increase wage pump that money right back into the economy.

 

Saw a portion of this study online before-can't find it now

In a work that has important implications for public policy as well as for the direction of economic research, the authors put standard economic theory to the test, using data from a series of recent episodes, including the 1992 increase in New Jersey's minimum wage, the 1988 rise in California's minimum wage, and the 1990-91 increases in the federal minimum wage. In each case they present a battery of evidence showing that increases in the minimum wage lead to increases in pay, but no loss in jobs.

 

The no loss in jobs probably has a lot to do with the price control of a minimum wage that has been kept way behind the costs of lving. Did unemployment spiral out of control when the minimum wage was increased in the mid 90s, did prices skyrocket?

If I recall correctly 50% of min wage workers are teenagers. What do you think they do with that money? It goes right back into the system.

[Strike 3,979]

Does this happen to ring a bell for anyone?

 

It means a decent living, with dignity. Not living in poverty because corporations and Toro and his ilk are greedy pigs.

 

I suspect that if they wanted it to mean "a decent living, with dignity", that they would have wrote "a decent living, with dignity". But you just keep on putting words in the founders mouths lol

[itsjjw 0]

CA $6.75

NY $7.15 (shortly)

IL $6.50

FL $6.40

NJ $7.15

OR $7.50

WA $7.63

MN $6.15 / $5.25 (dependent on gross receipts)

WI $5.70

AL $7.15

HI $7.25 (shortly)

MD $6.15

MA $6.75

DE $6.15

DC $7.00

CT $7.65 (shortly)

RI $7.10

VT $7.25

ME $6.50

 

So the vast majority of the country already has a higher minumum wage. The impact to the remaining states would be negligible.

 

 

I suspect that if they wanted it to mean "a decent living, with dignity", that they would have wrote "a decent living, with dignity". But you just keep on putting words in the founders mouths lol

The founding fathers had a gift for being concise. They did not need to list everything when a few simple words would suffice.

 

Unfortunately, they were also enlightened people. And did not expect that they would have to justify or make explicit statements to people who only wish to argue for the sake of argueing.

[Strike 3,979]

And my favorite:

 

Kansas $2.65

 

LOL. Even the illegals wouldn't go to Kansas if it weren't for the federal minimum wage. I mean, 25 years ago when I was working fast food in Cali. the min. wage was 3.35. Why even have the law?

[Toro 1]

It seems that most threads in which you disagree with Toro go something like this...

 

Toro makes a point, you argue the point and give your reasons, Toro calls you names or lays one of his patent one liners on you.

 

You are just mad because you need welfare.

 

That is all.

 

[toro] Shut up, focking lib commie! [/toro]

 

You sure are talking about me a lot today.

 

How many more threads are you going to start the same argument with me again?

[hoytdwow 202]

How many more threads are you going to start the same argument with me again?

I didn't start the thread.

 

HTH

[Toro 1]

I didn't start the thread.

 

HTH

 

You started the argument.

 

HTH.

[hoytdwow 202]

You started the argument.

 

HTH.

What the fuck. I joined in and questioned your stupid statements just like 15 other people in this thread.

 

Toro--->

[Toro 1]

What the fuck. I joined in and questioned your stupid statements just like 15 other people in this thread.

 

Toro--->

 

You constantly annoy most posters on this bored with your out-of-context bullcrap.

 

You are a troll, nothing more.

[hoytdwow 202]

You constantly annoy most posters on this bored with your out-of-context bullcrap.

 

You are a troll, nothing more.

I question your figures....at any rate it's better than being a self-absorbed stupid fucking right wing gun nut poseur like you.

[Toro 1]

I question your figures....at any rate it's better than being a self-absorbed stupid fucking right wing gun nut poseur like you.

 

Toro's life >>>> hoytdwow's pathetic existence.

 

You are just a simple troll starting arguments for the sake of arguments. If you question my figures, just ask.

[skins56 0]

I'd love to get into this debate but I don't have much time so I'll have to check back next week. Anyway, one point, and I don't know if anyone has already mentioned it or not because I didn't read every one of the 100+ posts yet: Does $6.85 an hour make one live with more pride than if they make $5.15? Or does it just satisfy them enough so there isn't an urgent need to strive for a better job? I'm trying to say this without sounding like an arrogant right winger but it seems to me things like raising the minimum wage, welfare, etc...just keep people poor and do nothing to help them in the long run. I teach in an inner city school and see this everyday with kids who won't work because they're afraid of losing their monthly check. I also can't help but see how policies that Dems have regarding these issues benefit themselves greatly by keeping a tight grasp on the poor/black voters.

 

In general, I hate seeing the government get involved in 90% of the issues they do, but since it seems that neither Dems or Republicans can stay the F out of my life today (and I'm not talking about the Patriot Act because that doesn't affect me at all) I guess these are debates we have to have. Just interested in getting some opposing viewpoints because I believe the opportunities for poor people and minorities are out there.

[jerryskids 5,206]

All I've gathered from your "analysis" was that you have no stats to back you up and you're not even sure if a hike in the minimum wage would = layoffs or higher prices. Very useful, great stuff.

I would need stats if my intention were to prove that the increase in min. wage would result in layoffs. That was not my intention. My intention was to point out that you are WRONG in your model of why companies have the number of employees they have, and to show that the wage of said employees is a parameter in that equation. This is irrefutable, at least for a capitalist economy. I have been very nice about this despite your snide comments, because you indicated a willingness to listen to alternative arguments. Clearly you don't have such a willingness.

[Snoopy1 0]

We can both cite articles that support our viewpoints. Here's an interesting one about recent political goings-on in my backyard.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/27/...in1839752.shtml

 

Daly has vetoed the measure, and the city council has since failed to override his veto.

 

Read what both Wal Mart and Target spokesmen said on the subject.

 

My original point was not that raising the minimum wage would lead to mass layoffs. Rather, that some corporations will use such an opportunity as an excuse to reduce head count. In this particular case, both retailers warned that they might choose to relocate out of Chicago if this measure was passed.

 

Big Box retailers operate on pretty slim margins. A spike in average payroll per store would have a drastic effect on their individual bottom line.

 

Speaking from inside a simliar corporation, I can guarantee you that head counts would have been reduced if this measure had stood. Further, we would have taken a long, hard look at shutting certain locations, and would have halted plans to open others.

 

My guess is that net job gain/loss on a statewide basis has as much to do with other economic factors as it does with an increase in minimum wage. Does the study you reference indicate total job gain/loss for the state, or is it looking directly at certain industries or companies that employ large numbers of minimum wage workers?

 

 

I'm sorry, but you comparing apples to oranges. The link I provided was to a study of states that raised the minimum wage above federal standards, using control groups.... Your link was speculation of the results. on something that had not even occured yet.

 

The study showed that raising the minimun wages in those states did not adversely affect employment.

[MDC 5,893]

I would need stats if my intention were to prove that the increase in min. wage would result in layoffs. That was not my intention. My intention was to point out that you are WRONG in your model of why companies have the number of employees they have, and to show that the wage of said employees is a parameter in that equation. This is irrefutable, at least for a capitalist economy. I have been very nice about this despite your snide comments, because you indicated a willingness to listen to alternative arguments. Clearly you don't have such a willingness.

 

Here's my point: An efficient business hires as few employees as it can possibly get away with, while still delivering a product that the public will by at a price that will yield a profit. Do you disagree with that? Read through your posts and my response and I think you'll see that my posts have been no more or less snide than yours. Here's what you originally said to Recliner Pilot asking me why we don't raise the min. wage to $25/hour:

 

I tried this approach a while back, it is futile. People like MDC claim that the minimum wage could be raised to X with no impact on employment. I tried to figure out where the line is. No luck.

 

So what are you trying to say? First you imply that raising the min. wage would lead to layoffs, now you say you're not claiming that. Do we disagree at all? If so I don't see how.

[jerryskids 5,206]

Here's my point: An efficient business hires as few employees as it can possibly get away with, while still delivering a product that the public will by at a price that will yield a profit. Do you disagree with that? Read through your posts and my response and I think you'll see that my posts have been no more or less snide than yours. Here's what you originally said to Recliner Pilot asking me why we don't raise the min. wage to $25/hour:

So what are you trying to say? First you imply that raising the min. wage would lead to layoffs, now you say you're not claiming that. Do we disagree at all? If so I don't see how.

First, yes I disagree. An efficient business hires the number of employees that maximizes profit. That is very different than your position, and I have tried to explain the difference. To use your Burger King example, one would expect that each additional employee has a lower incremental benefit than the previous one (the concept is diminishing marginal returns, and is described here.). That is, one employee can sell more product than zero. Two could sell more than one, but probably not twice as much. And so on. Draw that curve on a sheet of paper. At some point, the incremental wage of the employee does not offset the additional revenue, hence reduced profits, hence the established labor count. If you raise minimum wage, you change that curve.

 

Second, I am not saying that "increasing the min. wage would lead to layoffs." I am saying that at some point the increase will lead to layoffs; your position is that the specific proposed increase would NOT do so, I'm saying that the economics indicate that it influences the equation and thus could potentially lead to layoffs.

[MDC 5,893]

First, yes I disagree. An efficient business hires the number of employees that maximizes profit.

 

I fail to see how this is any different than what I've been saying.

 

Oh well.

[jerryskids 5,206]

I fail to see how this is any different than what I've been saying.

 

Oh well.

Say I sell burgers. My only cost is labor (for simplicity, obviously not real). I can sell each burger for $5.00. The first employee costs $1/burger, and each subsequent employee is half as efficient because of the diminishing returns I described above. Thus employee #2 costs $2/burger, still a profit. #3 is $4/burger, still a profit. #4 is $8/burger, stop, I don't hire him because I'm losing money with every burger he makes.

 

Now say the wage doubles (again for math simplicity). #1 costs $2/burger, still a profit. #2, $4/burger, still a profit. #3, $8/burger. Sorry #3, I need to lay you off.

 

In each case the company has hired the least number of employees to make a profit as you describe, but given the increase in wages, employee #3 is no longer profitable.

 

Does this help?

[vuduchile 1,941]

I'm sorry, but you comparing apples to oranges. The link I provided was to a study of states that raised the minimum wage above federal standards, using control groups.... Your link was speculation of the results. on something that had not even occured yet.

 

The study showed that raising the minimun wages in those states did not adversely affect employment.

 

Again, the summary of the study in your link does not specify whether it was drilled down to specific industries. It only relates a few states where overall unemployment was not impacted.

 

If the studies took into account any other job growth factors, it doesn't refer to them in the summary.

 

Bottom line: SOME companies will reduce head count if forced to pay entry level workers more than what they're paying them now. Other companies will not. In the end, it may not impact overall unemployment in a given state, region, or industry. There are far too many other factors in play to assume that a min. wage increase will swing the pendulum all by itself.

 

Having spent the better part of 20 years working for large corporations, I can tell you that payroll (especially at the entry level) is a key controllable expense. A few percentage points in either direction can make or break a unit's profitability. The article I cited shows one very large corporation whose position on mandated mimimum pay is that they would choose not to add jobs in the city of Chicago if that were to happen.

[Snoopy1 0]

Again, the summary of the study in your link does not specify whether it was drilled down to specific industries. It only relates a few states where overall unemployment was not impacted.

 

If the studies took into account any other job growth factors, it doesn't refer to them in the summary.

 

Bottom line: SOME companies will reduce head count if forced to pay entry level workers more than what they're paying them now. Other companies will not. In the end, it may not impact overall unemployment in a given state, region, or industry. There are far too many other factors in play to assume that a min. wage increase will swing the pendulum all by itself.

 

Having spent the better part of 20 years working for large corporations, I can tell you that payroll (especially at the entry level) is a key controllable expense. A few percentage points in either direction can make or break a unit's profitability. The article I cited shows one very large corporation whose position on mandated mimimum pay is that they would choose not to add jobs in the city of Chicago if that were to happen.

 

 

I agree to a point. At one point I ran a small business and keeping payroll under 10% of all expenses was the goal. Part of the problem in this thread is I get the impression people think payroll is the biggest expense a business has and that a 2 dollar increase across 40 hours will throw out of whack the entire company. The last min. wage increase took place when I ran that store, where all the new employees were paid min. wage. Now that was 10 years ago but I don't think it took me more then 2 months to get my payroll back to 10%.

 

Wish I could find the PDF, I had read earlier of Card and Krueger's work. It went into a lot more detail. I do a search on google now, since the law is introduced and I get so many blogs devoted to "unemployment will skyrocket" "this hurts those it intends to help". Sad, cause it's hard to have a real debate about something if only one person has seen a particular set of data.

 

Since we have seen in many states that have already increased the min. wage, that the sky didn't fall. I think we can agree the economy probably won't collapse. Much of those dollars probably will be recirculated.

 

Though I find it strange and wrong that Chicago targeted only a certain group of companies to increase the wage and demand that benefits be given. I doubt that would stand up to judicial review.

 

Thanks though for a intelligent discourse rather then the usual BS we see on this site.

[cinciman7 2]